It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: neo96
a reply to: strongfp
To some people even having one or two social programs that are paid for by taxes are seen as a full blown socialist state.
Because it is.
Lets take the big two. Social security and medicare.
Forced taxation of both employee, and employer.
Doesn't cover the benefits received.
New taxes are created like the Alterantive minimum tax.
More new taxes are created like the medicare capital gains surtax.
Keeping up ?
On top of printing fiat currency.
On top of borrowing from foreign countries like China.
For safety nets, and that 'awesome' free healthcare where it's premium is deducted from the social security monthly stipend.
SOCIALISM in Action.
Robbing every Peter to pay Paul.
originally posted by: The2Billies
originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
These are the jobs of ALL governments. This is what people pay taxes for. These are not socialist programs at all, they are the responsibility of government, especially local government - and without them no government would be worth having at all.
These things are NOT socialist, nor are they socialist programs.
This is what socialist point to as socialist programs to say that socialism is necessary and must be enacted in every country. This is not true at all, these are basic services of ALL forms of government and without them there is no government, just a rat hole for taxes.
A lot of people would argue that governments are there to govern, not to provide services. We have private schools and toll roads, and shouldn't a port be paid for by the people who actually use a port? If you live in inland do you really want your taxes paying for something that you'd never use?
On the other hand, in Europe running the railways is considered t be a basic function of government in many countries, or the telephone networks. For example in France the government owns the majority share in many railway companies and telecom companies, and in Britain the second biggest party competing in the next election is proposing to bring these things back under state control, and to nationalize broadband as a lot of people don't think that private companies are doing enough to supply services to the entire country and that they are only supplying the most profitable areas.
originally posted by: DISRAELI
a reply to: AaarghZombies
I would not call a country socialist unless it was governed by a socialist party with an unbreakable grip on power. Just as the Communist countries would regard themselves as socialist states, because their ruling party could not lose elections.
A few policies on their own would not qualify. As an historical example, the Imperial German government under Bismarck introduced a lot of laws which could be called socialist, but Bismarck was just outflanking the socialists; he wasn't a socialist himself, and Imperial Germany wasn't a socialist country.